The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-09-02
THE GEORGIAN IDEA,

70 the Editor Of tie Indianapolis Journal:
You say in your issue to-day that the fun
| damental idea of the Henry George theory is
that individual ownership of land should be
done away with, that all land should be owned
by the government and leased by individuals,
the entire rent being taken by the State, and
no other form of taxation allowed You
ought to be fair and truthful in this matter.
The Socialists believe and advocate the above,
attributed to Henry George. Mr. George
differs with them, hence the howl. The fact
is Mr.. George is in favor of the people holding
the land individually, just as they do now,
but instead of paying rent to landlords he
thinks it would be better to pay it to the State
in the shape of taxes for the benefit of the
State, county and township, and do away with
the personal tax altogether. He believes that
such system would kill land monopoly, that
is a to any country, and would force
men to use and improve their land or sell 1t
to some one who would-thereby furnishing
employment to honest labor. In closing [
will just inform you that the majority of our
people are honest and intelligent. and
you against telling lies or against willful
ignorance A. Il. WYNN.
The writer of this letter, evidently a fol-
lower of Mr.. George says the Journal mis-
represented his position. What the Journal
said exactly that "the fundamental idea
of the Henry George theory is that individual
ownership of land should be done away with,
that all land should be owned by the govern
ment and leased to individuals, the entire
rent being taken by the State, and no other
form of taxation allowed" The writer of the
letter above says that is the Socialist doctrine
and that Mr. George lis in favor of the people
holding the land individually, just as they
now do, but instead of paying rent to landlords
he thinks it would be better to pay it to the
State in the shape of taxes" We did not
intend to state Mr.. Georges position unfairly,
and do not think we did He proposes to
make the State the universal landlord. This,
in effect, abolishes individual ownership of
land. 1t would turn all land owners into
tenants of the State. We will let Mr.. George
define his position. In progress and Pow
erty" he says:
II do not propose either to purchase to
confscate private property or land. The
first would be unjust, the second needless.
Let the individuals who now hold it still
retain if they want to- possession of what
they pleased to call their land. Let them
continue to call it their land Let them
buy and sell and bequeath and devise it,
we may SdLely leaVo tuoIu Inc smell III we take
the kernel"
The kernel which Mr.. George proposes to
take is to be obtained by taxing land to the
extent of its full annual value, this tax to
take the place of all others. Under this
system the government would take the s.ker-
mel" as Mr. George expresses it, and leave the
so-called landowner the husk He could, as
the children say, ''play pretend" at owning
land-or as Mr.. George says, he might
tinue to call it his-but the kernel would be
gone All that landowner would own or
could convey would be the right to pay the
government the full annual rental value of
the land Without following out the theory
to any of its other conclusions, we repeat that
by making the government the sole landlord
and all landowners mere tenants of the gov
eminent, it would, to all intents and purposes,
destroy individual ownership of land.
Perhaps we ought to thank, our correspond
ent for the advice contained in the closing
sentence of his letter. In return, we advise
him to go and buy of ground as near
Toledo as he can afford to. That will cure
him of Henry Georgeism. No man who owns
or ever expects to own a foot of land can
accept the doctrine